In 2021, I published a paper focused on torture as an element of social control.
In the article, I presented a thesis that explained not only the resumption of torture as a phenomenon in the second half of the XX century but also the spreading of the phenomenon of torture in the XXI century with corresponding dispersal of social control networks and, consequently, increasing types of deviants.
The article emphasizes that in contemporary society, torture exists within two interrelated political spheres, where the first of the spheres is a formalized policy of combating torture, which is shaped and implemented within universal regional and national structures.
The second one is an informal torture policy, which is shaped within the framework of post-modern modulation of panoptic risk management, where torture is an instrument of modern social control.
I stressed that torture was primarily a political issue, and addressing it would require an analysis of the practice of torture as an impersonal policy.
Nowadays, considering the problem of ill-treatment on the national level, I still have the same opinion: torture can constitute a policy, but mainly an impersonal one hidden in the network of social control measures.
Nevertheless, in 2021, I could hardly predict the level of cruelty that would be brought to Ukraine by Russian soldiers and officers. Unfortunately, torture as a policy has become a reality, as was demonstrated.
The mentioned thesis can be found in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Human Rights Council. Fifty-fifth session, 26 February – 5 April 2024):
The Special Rapporteur found the allegations heard consistent with those brought to her attention prior to the visit, that she continued to receive also after the visit, and which she communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation in June 2023. At that time, the Special Rapporteur had noted that the reported targeting of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war by members of the Russian army through repeated, similar conduct, across a range of temporarily occupied towns and regions, constituted a consistent pattern indicative of State policy.
In light of all the foregoing, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that the above-mentioned accounts (reduced for readability) appear to be reliable, concordant and sufficiently numerous to exclude that they are representative of merely isolated or ad hoc incidents. The methods, purposes and targets were consistent, and the mirroring of the same practices across different regions further reflects State war policy.
The torture described is neither random nor aberrant behaviour. Rather, it is the Special Rapporteur’s analysis that the body of interviews and other documentation reflect a repetitive and continuing situation whereby torture and other ill-treatment or punishment were carried out in an organized and systematic manner, within the framework of a higher-order policy requiring coordination, planning and organisation, as well as the direct authorization, deliberate policy or official tolerance from superior State authorities.
About The Author
